What I believe to be a simple truth: if we cannot find a way to remove the dozens and dozens

[Atticus]

of "judges" appointed by the maniac in the White House, we will have lost the democracy we took for granted.

Many of these apointees are laughably incompetent; some are frighteningly ideological; a few, by accident, are acceptable. All are tainted by the simple fact that the person who nominated them was not the legitimate POTUS.

HOW to remove them may be complicated, but WHETHER they should be is obvious.

[lagomorph777]

1. Most of them will turn out to be criminals,

because (obviously by now), that's who Trump picks for any job.

That offers a potential path to impeachment. But only, of course, if we take massive majorities in the House and Senate, and the White House.

Another option is to increase the number of judges (legal, and actually needed anyway), then shrink the districts for the right-wing crook judges.

[uponit7771]

2. THIS !!!! I've thought the same thing, about a 3rd of them will be going to jail and all of their

... judgments overturned or wiped out.

The other 3rd will have their courtrooms bi-passed because of the judges outspoken bias in regards to cases and people.

[onenote]

9. Silly.

First, the assertion that "most" of the Trump judicial appointees are criminal is pure hyperbole on your part, with nothing to back it up.

Second, impeaching a judge doesn't "wipe out" their judgments.

Third, how exactly will these judges be "bi-passed"?

Elections have consequences, and losing not just the presidency, but also the Senate, was a major consequence in 2016 and dreaming that there is a magic way of putting the genie back in the bottle may help some folks sleep at night, but doesn't do anything to change things.

What will change things is winning in 2020 and capturing the Senate.

There are 179 authorized Court of Appeals judgeships. There currently are only 9 vacancies left. If Trump fills them (and I imagine he will) he will have filled around 25 percent of the positions There are a lot of Bush 1 appointees that will be moving into Senior Status after the 2020 elections -- a lot of opportunities for a Democratic president and Senate to re-balance the court (in addition there will be a number of Clinton appointees going into senior status and that will be an opportunity to replace them with younger liberal judges). With regard to the District Courts, there are 677 authorized judgeships. Trump currently has filled (or named nominees to fill) around 16 percent. Again, a lot of spots will open up after the 2020 elections.

So rather than imagining ways of undoing what has been done, the focus needs to be on ensuring a Democratic President, with the support of a Democratic Senate, is filling the dozens and dozens of vacancies that will arise after the next election.

[uponit7771]

11. There's no rational reason to assume anyone associated with the president is NOT a criminal

... anyone.

[onenote]

12. We have different concepts of "rational" I guess.

[malaise]

10. Thread winner

[Codeine]

3. Trump is the legitimate president.

Legitimacy is bestowed by the EC. He’s a flaming dumpster fire, but nevertheless.

[beachbum bob]

4. requires impeachment and 67 votes in the senate, so not very likely and elections matter

[Chin music]

13. MUCH more likely when the evidence of all he's done is brought to light.

Somethings hard, so, don't attempt it? Sounds like your message to me.

[beachbum bob]

15. I am talking impeaching federal judges as this was OP topic, trump is another issue

[fescuerescue]

34. 91 Federal judges

that's how many Trump has appointed.

Heck. We didn't need that 1st year of legislation anyway.

[leftynyc]

5. This is why anyone who didn't vote for Hillary

who either voted donnie, third party or stayed home is directly responsible for this. Plenty right here were screaming about judges to anyone who whined about how unlikable Hillary was and this is why.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Yup

For the Supreme Court if nothing else. But no, they didn’t, and a lot of them still wouldn’t.

[leftynyc]

8. They're morons

And not just the supremes - the entire federal bench is important. I wish people understood this better.

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. "the simple fact that the person who nominated them was not the legitimate POTUS."

Trump didn't pick these people, the likes of The Heritage Foundation did.

Trump didn't know any of these idiots, trust me. He rubber stamped a wish list of conservative assholes that the right wing has been masturbating itself over for years.

THIS is why he is still there. THIS is why the evangelicals love him so much; Because he will appoint anyone they tell him to, and by doing so, they are able to pack the courts with people who basically think women are property and the universe is 6000 years old.

These people know he is a scumbag, they just hate progressive ideals (i.e. abortion, religious freedom, including freedom FROM religion, etc.) so much that they need this process to win. Their ideology is not the majority one, they ALWAYS lose in a fair electoral fight so they cheat.

And they got one of the worlds greatest cheats to help them do it.

[Chin music]

14. Well stated.

[Maru Kitteh]

16. We really should pack the court. To hell with what the Nazis think.

Truly, I do not care.

It won't cure everything but it's one hell of a start.

[MarcA]

17. The U.S. will have to resolve its Structural Inertia if it hopes to survive.

Electoral College, undemocratic Senate and judges for life mainly. However, the two-thirds
and three-fourths requirements makes this nearly impossible. This is not just a Republican
or Democratic rule issue. The coming decades can bring about unforeseen realignments.

[Atticus]

18. Just one of the obstacles to what you propose---with which I agree--- is the insistence that we not

"color outside the lines" without any consideration of the facts that 1.) the lines were, for the most part, drawn in a world that only vaguely resembles ours, and 2.) circumstances have forced us to confront an adversary that acknowledges NO lines.

Going forward, in a few years the Senate will have 70 seats elected by the 30% of the nation that is primarily white, rural, Christian, straight and VERY conservative. Those "unforeseen realignments" will not be pleasant.

[fescuerescue]

35. Nobody is going to fight a Civil war or stage a coup over a bunch of judges

Can't pretend that we don't know what "color outside the lines" means.

[Atticus]

36. Gee, when you tell me "what I really mean", I think I'm listening to Rush. That's the sort of

mindless bullshit he is famous for. Your conclusion as to what I "really mean" is not only contradicted by other posts of mine in this thread, it lays bare your near total lack of imagination and curiosity.

[fescuerescue]

37. could you give me an example?

of coloring outside the lines?

btw, no. I haven't read all your posts. But I did read that one and I responded to it, not your entire library.

[Atticus]

38. I have done that repeatedly and at great length for others. But, they didn't begin

the discussion with ignorant snark. We are done. Say what you will.

[fescuerescue]

39. So you can't - got it.

Excellent job in influencing, bringing people around to your point of view. I bet Nancy Pelosi will be acting on your suggestion anytime now.

I'm sure that's why you started your thread.

[Crash2Parties]

19. That was not the work of trump; it was an organized attack on democracy by the GOP

They blocked those judge seats throughout much of the Obama administration from even having hearings. Their stated plan all along was to fill them (we now know) once they stole control of the government. Trump doesn't even know who most of those appointees are, he's rarely met any of them before and could not tell you a single thing about them. This is part of a coup by the furthest right wing that started with Garland & Gorsuch and is continuing to this day.

[Atticus]

21. I agree that, although it was Trump who technically "nominated" these judges, he was merely

the TOOL used by the super-wealthy. Trump couldn't begin to explain why he chose a particular candidate beyond "That's who the boys at Heritage told me to pick".

[WillowTree]

20. Not gonna happen. Elections have consequences.

[Atticus]

23. The last election was pretty clearly stolen with the assistance of a major adversary. Does that

matter at all or are you ok with that? Should we just suck it up and accept it because it was successful?

[WillowTree]

24. He IS the President. The Electoral College confirmed it.

And he will be until and unless he's either impeached and convicted or voted out of office in 2020 (assuming he doesn't die first). That's just a fact, no matter how much you don't like it. And thus, the judicial appointments that he makes and the Senate confirms are valid and can't just be nullified.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Atticus]

26. He IS NOT my president---never will be. I am sorry you claim him as yours. The "bubble" we need

to be concerned with is the bubble of accepting the crimes that have been perpetrated against us as "just the way things are---can't be helped."

[WillowTree]

28. No one is "accepting the crimes". I'm just accepting the *facts*.

And all the yearning for some kind of magical electoral do-over continually by one person or another over the past 2 years, 4 months and 12 days gets old because it just isn't going to happen. The election is over, the Electoral College has spoken and, though you're certainly within your rights to declare that he IS NOT your president, he is THE President. If you know of some way to change that fact within the laws of the land, let's hear it.

[Atticus]

29. I'm sure you are sincere. So am I. nt

[GulfCoast66]

22. We will be lucky to win a majority in the Senate. So let's focus on that first.

We will not have the 67 seats necessary to remove judges in my lifetime.

I doubt I ever see the 60 seats we would need to pack the Supreme Court.

We will be doing well to win a majority in the Senate and the Presidency allowing out older liberal judges to be replaced with like mind folks. That is my focus. The politics of the possible.

[Atticus]

25. You may be entirely right. I am just not convinced that "what is possible " includes only

what has been done before. Unprecedented threats may require unprecedented remedies.

[GulfCoast66]

30. If your unprecedented remedies involve anything other than elections,

Count me out.

And my prediction stands as far as what is electorally possible for us. The Senate is just bad for us. Not that it could not change over time.

[Atticus]

31. I do not advocate violence or anything that does violence to the Constitution. But, that

leaves a whole lot of possibilities besides just "elections". I will not bore you with them.

Thanks for your response.

[samir.g]

27. Any. Means. Necessary.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

32. Does a lifetime appointment mean that they must be allowed to hear cases?

I seem to recall around Chicago that supervising judges had sometimes placed other judges on suspended duty. They got paid and occasionally pulled into vacation relief but largely didn't try cases.
Just tossing that out there because I know nothing about the process.

[fescuerescue]

33. 91 impeachments would be required

I think if we get to the point where we can successfully force all 91 judges out, that means we've already lost Democracy.